B Garfinkel vs F Wren, 1933 (20...?)

Black to play and win.

Material: Even. The White Kh3 is stalemated, so Black wants to check, check, check!

Candidates (20...): Nf2+

Trust your ordered mind to come up with that! It's a good idea, but just think of the arguments we would have en route... >

After 3... Qh4+ 4. Kf1, white king is quite comfortable and black queen is aimlessly hovering at a rather silly place; after Nf3 she will have to retreat and it is not at all clear where is the best place for her - possibly d8, but then the entire interlude has provided white with one free tempo.

For example, I don't think we all did too well on "blindfold chess" ;>) >

That's a very juicy observation, and it is obviously the tactical launching pad in the search for a solution. Can we move the knight in such way that black has no time to defend against ...Rh1#?

The clearest attempt is to move the knight such that it gives check: 20...Nf2+, which gives white two choices:

<Once>: While your mocking tone is noted, the fact that a seminal work on the sacrifice in chess exists will not go away. Educate yourself on the topic you wish to explore, and you will find your opinions more well rounded. Maybe you decide to re-invent the wheel anyway, but you may as well look at the design the first guy came up with! ;-)

<al wazir>: You bring up an interesting point. In Spielmann's time, there was no Fritz or Rybka (well, there was Saemisch, and little fish did exist, but you know what I mean ;-). From what I read in his book, a sham sacrifice is one where the return on investment is quite clear. A real sacrifice contains an element of risk.

Now, what is clear to me is not the same as what is clear to Kasparov, Rybka, or an omniscient being.

I can recall "sacrificing" in a game, in the sense that I felt it was correct, but could not prove it to a final evaluation and position. Later, the engine confirmed that my idea was in fact sound, and the strongest in the position, and lead to a forced win.

So, it can certainly be debated in that sense. My initial feeling is that it is somewhat subjective: You think it's a "real" sacrifice, but the 2600 player looking over your shoulder sees it wins by force in 8 moves. Or, you are in some sharp Najdorf Sicilian line. You spot a nice piece sacrifice that seems to give excellent attacking chances. You play it, win brilliantly, and consult your database, only to find... Volokitin played the exact same thing 3 years ago in Kiev, and it was all home preparation for him! Well, OK, to you it was a real sacrifice, but clearly there was no risk if you had considered all the possible information available.

However, my main point in replying to you originally was not to claim that I was an arbiter on all sacrificial concepts, but merely to point out that "sacrifice" and "blunder" are not interchangeable words.

Yes, but which seminal work should we believe? "The art of attack in chess" by Vukovic? My System or Chess Praxis by Nimzowich? The Oxford Companion to chess? The Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess? Lasker's Complete Chess Course? Aahgard's "excelling in" series? Add in works by Tal, Pachman, Alekhine, Nunn, Watson, Kasparov, Seirawan, Silman ...

I happen to agree with your definition and I quite like the term "sham sacrifice". But I have read too many different versions to feel comfortable saying that any one version is definitive or that any one book is the lsst word on the subject.

No mocking intended!

<agb2002> I think, with regret, that this answers your question about a glossary. I am quite certain that there is plenty of disagreement between chess authors about the meaning of individual chess terms. We see it on a regular basis on this site. Anyone with more than a handful of chess books will no doubt have noticed that they don't use the same terms.

But I am not sure that we could have a reasoned debate. Whilst some of us are open to the possibility of different interpretations of chess terms, there are several here who think that no debate is needed, and that the meanings are perfectly clear.

Both 3. Nf3 and 3. Bc4 are recognised variations of the King's Gambit accepted. The best book I know on the King's Gambit is by Neil McDonald (Batsford 1998). In his introduction, he has this to say: "...when I told David Bronstein I was writing a book on the King's Gambit, he replied "You want to play the King's Gambit? Well, Black can draw after 3. Nf3. Play 3. Bc4 if you want to win!"

But of course there's that scary queen check. Neil McDonald again: "... in several variations of the King's Knight Gambit White has to be ready to give up castling, so why should he be particularly afraid of 3... Qh4+?"

Indeed, McDonald goes on to say that the modern line for black after 3. Bc4 is either 3...c6 4. Nc3 Nf6 or 3...Nf6 4. Nc3 c6, with not a queen check in sight.

However, we are talking about "sacrifices." And there is a universally acknowledged (by those who have taken the time to read it) treatise on just this subject. A specialized monograph to help amateur chess players more fully understand *this one topic*.

All of your rhetoric and dancing around with the goal of winning an internet debate changes nothing. Either you're serious about the concept, in which case you'll consult the text, or you're more interested in puffing up your own ego and spouting ignorance.

A few named variations (after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4) are ...

Orsini Gambit: 3.b3

Breyer: 3.Qf3

Lesser Bishop's Gambit: 3.Be2

Willemsom Gambit: 3.d4

Pernau-Keres: 3.Nc3

King's Bishop's Gambit: 3.Bc4

The last-named includes the Bryan Gambit (3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 b5) which featured in Anderssen's 'immortal game' vs Kieseritzky.

I haven't read the Spielman book, but it sounds like one I will add to my collection as soon as I can. Thank you very much for recommending it.

I wholeheartedly share your (and Spielman's) definition of a sacrifice. For me, there is a clear distinction between a real sacrifice and one which can be proved to lead to a definite win.

I quite like and endorse the term "sham sacrifice". Indeed, I have defended <patzer2> in the past when others have argued against it.

There are so many points on which we agree.

But where I struggle to agree is the idea that any one chess book is the definitive word on a subject, especially when it comes to the meaning of chess terminology. I would dearly love it to be the case, but it is really difficult to achieve in practice.

Spielman's book gives us his opinion, but it remains just his point of view. A very authoritative view, of course, and one which you and I agree with. Heck, even Wikipedia agrees with us!

But there are plenty of people on this site who don't agree with us. And it is hard to quibble with their definition of a sacrifice just because Spielman says so.

Chess doesn't have a written constitution, a bill of rights, primary legislation, a definitive source. Instead it has a set of authors who are all giving their opinions. Some are clearly more authoritative than others, but none is the final word.

Am I puffing up my ego and spouting ignorance? I hope not. What I am trying to do is to show respect for people who have a different viewpoint to me, and you.